Removing a neighbor because they remind us of they situation we are also in, only invites others to remove us because we are declaring weakness. Love thy neighbor and work with them. They can help build a community instead of just living next door. You can help build a community instead of just living next door. Build strength, not bigotry and denial. Herbert West III, west.herb@yahoo.comhttp://www.wen2k.com
Removing a neighbor because they remind us of the situation we are also in, only invites others to remove us because we are declaring weakness. Love thy neighbor and work with them. They can help build a community instead of just living next door. You can help build a community instead of just living next door. Build strength, not bigotry and denial. Herbert West III, west.herb@yahoo.comhttp://www.wen2k.com
Unless Herb, the neighborhood where you live is a breakaway Mormon sect ranch. Then, even if you had nothing to do with any wrongdoing, your children can be ripped away from you permanently by the government on the basis of a faked phone call. And since you have chosen a life style different from the rest and people think you are strange, you have no due process.
stop lying outlander, they are getting their due process. You’re all teh same people who defend the waco child abuse too. I guess nothing is wrong anymore to republicans. Civil rights only to the men.
Well Mom, it doesn’t sound to me like the women are getting their civil rights. Most of them have done nothing wrong and yet, they have their children ripped away from them WITHOUT DUE PROCESS.
A fine advocate of women’s rights you are. Only liberal women, right mom?
Despite claims to the contrary, parental rights are considered a pretty fundamental right in this country. Due process will take place. In the cases of suspected child abuse, the potential danger to helpless victims is seen as a factor making the removal of children until it is determined they can be safe, a reasonable process. Is this traumatic for parents, and sometimes children? I would definitely say yes. But as a recent death of a young child in Wichita demonstrates, there can be worse outcomes.
I recall people making religious freedom arguments about the Branch Davidians (sp), too. I think as the evidence came out, it was pretty clear that those children were exposed to very serious abuse.
The Wichita Eagle is doing its’ part to define community standards by allowing the porno-related postings on its WEBlog where school children are allowed to see them.
I have a close friend who’s written a book and produced a British television expose on the Warren Jeffs cult.
As with most things, people are missing the real societal problem. Don’t be distracted by the forced marriages, religious freedom, the bed-in-the-temple, etc…
Jeffs built his communities by leaching off the taxpayers of Utah, Arizona, and Texas. Since polygamy is illegal all the 2nd, 3rd, 8th wives of these guys are, in the eyes of the state, indigent unwed mothers… and so qualify for all sorts of government benefits.
The media plays up the sex angle but it’s a welfare scam. Pure and simple.
We don’t need cheaper gas, we need alternate forms of energy. Reducing the price of gas short term does nothing to solve the underlying problem.
Many problems could be solved if we weren’t so dependant on fossil fuels.
Isn’t this a classic case, Linda, of presumed guilt by association?
A hypothetical if I might. What if say, two of the neighbors on the same street you live on were accused on abusing their children. And let’s add to it the fact that they went to same church as you.
Would it be fair for the authorities to assume that your children are in peril and to take them from you?
I see what you’re trying to say in your analogy Outlander. We both know there are differences in my neighborhood and the one these women live in. I am sad for the children and the Mothers but I want it investigated and if there are youngsters being involved in what should be adult sexual behavior it is a lifestyle they need to be protected and removed from.
The same thing would be if someone called the police on me saying I starved my child….and they got there and found nicely fat children, but one of them beaten black and blue…so they take all the children. Note, even though the INITIAL complaint was false, they still did what was in the best interest of the CHILDREN.
These parents aren’t even parents. They do what they are told to do, they have no free will. The men rule and torture-yes torture the women and children to get them to comply. The ENTIRE society- men and women- who stand by and allow this are GUILTY and should be tried even if it is just someone who stood idly by and allowed the abuse to happen.
I AM an advocate of women’s rights, so I might MIGHT let the women who didn’t know better off. But the older ones who knew what they were doing they should be in prison for accessory to child rape and abuse.
It’ll take a long time to sort it out. That’s why nobody has been ARRESTED yet. But I’m sure that they will be.
I fail to see how ANYONE, left or right, can defend this Mormon cult in Texas. This goes way beyond a matter or partisanship. Some of these young women, well under the age of sixteen, have already made children or are pregnant. By definition this is statutory rape and child abuse. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, these mothers have allowed this to happen to their under aged daughters.
The authorities are doing the best they can, given the huge number, 416, of children involved. It will take time to sort out this disgusting mess, but it is best to err on the side of protecting the children.
To assume that the children will be fine with their mothers is an invitation to disaster.
From the posts here I guess no one was surprised when the ‘victim’ call was found to be from a 40 old woman who is an Obama delegate. It does seem to be a dem/lib position that gross atrocities were taking place but so far this hasn’t been proved.
MH I like you think they have mastered the welfare scams. Also know how to get grants with hundreds of thousands in tax payer dollars going to build the infrastructure in this compound. Over $400,000 to build water treatment plant for their private use financed by us the state of Texas.
That said we have to look at it without prejuidice. The wholesome seizure of hundreds of children doesn’t pass the smell test.
Well, my father and I went to see Expelled last night.
I must say it was even better than I expected.
I love the part where Ben Stein is interviewing Dr. Hawkins and Hawkins says that he believes it might be possible that another advanced civilization could have seeded life here on Earth.
Then there was the other Evolution proponent who believed life began from crystals.
When asked to explain how, he acted like Ben was ignorant for not grasping the concept. It’s crystals, duh!
#
ksfarmgrrl
Posted April 20, 2008 at 10:24 am | Permalink
…and a happy four twenty to all.
heheheheh!
————————————–
You’re not one of those farmers that grows their cannabis on their neighbors side of the fence so you don’t get in trouble do you?
Well, well, well: so Senator Intemperance–sorry, Senator McCain–apparently got into a shoving match with Senator Charles Grassley after Grassely took umbrage at being called a profane name by Senator McCain.
Departing the International Space Station last evening, South Korean Spaceflight Participant Yi So-Yeon, Russian flight-engineer Yuri Malenchenko and the US Commander Peggy Whitson boarded the Soyuz TMA-11 capsule only to ride a flaming hot “ballistic re-entry” - an uncontrollable, steep trajectory, much shorter than the planned path home exposing the crew to 10 times normal Earth gravity. But all ended safely after the spacecraft landed near the Kazakh border, south-east of the Russian city of Orsk and 260-miles off course. [Video 1 and Video 2 and The New York Times]
Oddly, in a unusal statement to reports post-landing Russian Federal Space Agency chief Anatoly Perminov seemed to blame women being on the Soyuz for the spacecraft being off course and in the ballastic re-entry telling AP: “You know in Russia, there are certain bad omens about this sort of thing, but thank God that everything worked out successfully. Of course in the future, we will work somehow to ensure that the number of women will not surpass [the number of men]. This isn’t discrimination. I’m just saying that when a majority [of the crew] is female, sometimes certain kinds of unsanctioned behavior or something else occurs, that’s what I’m talking about.”
The Clintons, Triangulating with China
Bashing “Chinese money” in public, accepting it in private.
Any role played by Bill Clinton in dealings between a Chinese state-owned company and a U.S. company should be vetted during a presidential campaign.
1) The first of these more businesslike Clinton-China connections is California billionaire and ‘Hillraiser’ Ron Burkle, a high-end supporter who has raised over $100,000 for Hillary Clinton and who is reportedly paying $20 million to Bill Clinton as a settlement for Mr. Clinton’s services and ownership stake in Burkle’s private investment firm, The Yucaipa Companies.
In September 2007, Yucaipa agreed to purchase a major stake in Xinhua Finance Media, part of the Chinese government-owned media conglomerate Xinha. Under the deal, Chicago banker David Olson, a Yucaipa partner and Clinton supporter, became part of the board of Xinhua Finance Media as a director.
The benefits to Xinhua from the deal are apparent. The U.S.-listed securities of the overseas company rose to their highest level in more than three months after the announcement of the Yucaipa stake. The deal might not be a one-way street. A year before Burkle announced the purchase in Xinhua Finance Media, China’s Xinhua News Agency had instituted a demand that financial news services including Bloomberg and Reuters in China sell information through Xinhua.
This demand, the kind usually represented as communistic, anti-Western, or anti-free press, could dovetail neatly with some capitalist-running-dog interests.
Reporters for Xinhua, sensitive to a potential appearance of impropriety, have tried to balance coverage of the Clinton and Obama campaigns. The Clinton campaign has not responded to emailed questions and request for comment.
2) In March 2008, the Chicago Tribune reported another connection linking Bill Clinton with the Chinese news industry. Clinton was compensated for his support for an Internet company called Accoona, whose main partner is China Daily Information Co., a subsidiary of Chinese government-run China Daily, the country’s largest English-language newspaper.
Accoona, privately held, paid the former president with options for 200,000 shares of stock for the William J. Clinton Foundation. The Foundation sold the shares in 2006 for $700,000.
As the Tribune reported,
“Twice in the last year, Accoona filed, and subsequently withdrew, plans for a public offering, once on London’s AIM market and more recently in the U.S. on the NASDAQ exchange.
“Accoona’s prospectus for its aborted U.S. offering pointed to some of its difficulties. The company never had made a profit; a co-founder and major shareholder had pleaded guilty to a felony fraud charge; and Accoona’s key partner is a media company controlled by the Chinese government, which often is criticized for censoring the Internet….
“Accoona’s prospectus acknowledged that the company is subject to censorship by the Chinese government and that the “Ministry of Public Security has the authority to order any local Internet service provider to block any Internet Web site at its sole discretion…. Furthermore, we are required to report any suspicious content to relevant governmental authorities.”
China Daily put the Accoona search engine on the front page of its Web version.
3) A third and more personal China-Clinton connection is Sandy Berger, Bill Clinton’s National Security Advisor and recently a foreign policy advisor to the Clinton campaign. Samuel R. ‘Sandy’ Berger, as readers may recall, was the former Clinton national security chief who removed classified documents from a National Archives reading room in October 2003, shortly before Berger was to testify to the Independent 9/11 Commission. Berger reportedly took away one copy of five classified copies of a Millennial Plots report, produced for former counterterrorism advisor Richard Clarke, in September 2003, and then took away the four remaining copies of the report the next month, stowing them first in his clothing and then at a nearby construction site.
Like Ron Burkle, Sandy Berger is listed as a member of the Clinton Global Initiative, the foundation established by former president Clinton which has funded his presidential library.
Berger’s recent role as foreign policy advisor in Hillary Clinton’s 2008 campaign extends his previous roles as a fixture in foreign policy for both Clintons. Already developing global connections, Berger was then-Arkansas governor Bill Clinton’s foreign policy advisor during his presidential campaign, became Assistant Transition Director for National Security during the 1992 Clinton-Gore transition, moved into the Clinton administration as Deputy National Security Advisor and then became NSA.
Even back during the Clinton administration, Berger apparently did not want China to get in trouble with his boss the then-president. He delayed for more than a year to inform Bill Clinton that China had acquired designs of U.S. nuclear warheads.
Extending his longtime global connections, Berger is now co-Chairman and co-founder of Stonebridge International, a DC-based advisory firm which has made substantial contributions to the Clinton campaign and which offers its services to help companies expand in foreign markets including China (and Russia, India and Brazil). Berger is also on the board of a New York-based international hedge fund, DB Zwim Global Advisory, headed by substantial Clinton donor Daniel B. Zwim, with subsidiaries and interests around the world including a large Singapore concrete company. Berger’s Stonebridge bio says, “He is involved across nearly all the firm’s engagements and regions, with a particularly strong focus on Asia, Russia and Central Asia and the Middle East.”
Globalizing and big donors go together, of course. But any role played by Bill Clinton in dealings between a Chinese state-owned company and a U.S. company should be vetted during a presidential campaign.
It’s been 34 years since “Deep Throat” advised Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein (as documented in their book, “All the Presidents Men”) to “follow the money” in the Watergate case that resulted in President Nixon’s ignominious resignation.
In rooting out political corruption, that advice still holds, one of the latest examples being the payment schedule that Democrat New York Governor Eliot Spitzer was caught on tape trying to negotiate with his prostitute of choice.
But Spitzer’s self-destructive, career-destroying behavior, like Nixon’s, is small potatoes compared to the filthy-lucre trail of Bill and Hillary Clinton.
In reviewing only a small number of the shady deals both Bill and Hillary have made over the years, it should be clear to any sane American that entrusting Hillary with the U.S. presidency will:
–Threaten our national security.
–Bankrupt our domestic policies.
–Contaminate every treaty and trade deal with questions about their legality.
Mire our system in four or eight more years of sleazy scandals.
In a riveting article, New York Times best-selling author Richard Poe says: “When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, China presented no threat to the United States…how did the Chinese catch up so fast? Easy. We sold them all the technology they needed – or handed it over for free. Neither neglect nor carelessness is to blame. Bill Clinton did it on purpose.”
“Federal investigators,” Poe continues, “later concluded that China made off with the `crown jewels’ of our nuclear weapons research…probably including design specifications for suitcase nukes.” The result: “China can now hit any city in the USA, using state-of-the-art solid-fueled missiles with dead-accurate, computerized guidance systems and multiple warheads.”
In short order, defense contractors, eager to sell technology to China, poured millions of dollars into Clinton’s 1996 presidential campaign. So grateful were the recipients that “Chinese intelligence organized a massive covert operation aimed at tilting the 1996 election Clinton’s way.”
I dont hate my neighbor, I do demand they conduct themselves with others in mind instead of using them for “Personal Gain”. Communities are a 2 way street. Removing someone so we can gain onto their territory around us, is not cool. I posted twice too correct a misspelled word, berber. too political_mama, I give respect when I recieve it. I share with my neighbors. I expose trolls in our neighborhoods. Too outlander, please consider and look at “Volatile Situation” as a Legal definition. Would you walk away while an adult beats a child because they are the same ethnic background and the adult seems to be in control of the beaten child? Is the State wrong for protecting 12 year old wives with 2 and 3 kids? If the Poligamy Church or Ranch is so leagla, why are their Marriage Lisences not filed? If I at 41 were to be married to a 12 year old and had 2 and 3 kids with her, would I be wrong? In America, YEA! I believe in GOD. Why cant I have a 12 year old wife? Why do you want a 12 year old wife? I believe in “DUE PROCESS”. I also dont feel babies should be having babies. Thanks again Herbert West III, P.S. as a Baptist I would still be wrong. Catholics, Luthern, Mormon or any Religion, 12 years old and married to anyone is wrong. It is not a Religion, it is a Blasphamy. HLWIII, west.herb@yahoo.comhttp://www.wen2k.com
Poor Max. He’s so in defense of this administration and this FANTASTIC way of life that he’s gotta try to bring up anything at all to make the opponent look bad. To bad he’s not American. Americans care for America.
If and when the time comes to perform the autopsy on Hillary Clinton’s campaign, some will trace the start of its demise back to the Norman Hsu episode. Others will ask, “What’s a Norman shoe?”
First the WSJ broke the Norman Hsu story. Then, last October the LATimes broke the story of the vanishing NYC Chinatown donors (read a possible non-MSM explanation of what that was all about here). Neither story was completed. The “Drive-By’s” just shot them up and drove on down the road.
Rage (in case you didn’t see my post on the Bush thread):
If what Martin is trying to do on localization succeeds, consolidation is a dead issue. Already, FOX, CBS and NBC have sold some of their holdings. Disney is reportedly not far behind. The economy of scale for localization doesn’t work for big operators.
Plus, Martin has gotten NCTA and NAB to sit down on a long-term solution for LP and CA stations like mine. Nobody is reporting this (heaven forbid the Eagle step away from the Cox party line), but 2/3 of the television stations in this country WILL NOT go digital on 2/17/09.
There is legislation pending in Congress to fix this… in 2012. Martin has proposed a magnificent solution, whereby cable companies and full powers would loan space to other stations until they have their own digital signals, and speed the process for stations in that situation.
But Congress is too hung up on this Net Neutrality crap. It’s crap because it’s an anti-trust issue, and should be settled by the Judiciary Committee, not the Commerce Committee. Lost in Ted Stevens’ famous “the internet is a bunch of tubes” speech was a compromise where the Judiciary Committee would have heard net neutrality, leaving the Commerce Committee to discuss broadcast and cable issues in… a broadcast and cable bill. What a concept!
For that reason, Obama needs to leave Martin alone and let him finish his work in this area. Up to 117,000 American jobs are at stake here.
Overwhelming Majority Of Hillary Supporters Voting For Hillary
PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania (AP) — A new Gallup Poll released last Wednesday showed that out of a sample of 5834 Hillary Clinton supporters, 87% of them plan to cast their vote for her in the upcoming Pennsylvania Primary. Although most Hillary Supporters cite the same reasons in support of casting their votes for her, reasoning varies widely among those supporters that plan to vote against her or abstain from voting at all.
“I just don’t think my vote makes a difference,” stated Angela, 35. “Is Hillary going to come to my job and mandate a raise for me? Is she going to babysit my three children? I don’t think so.” When asked why she attended rallies at all, she indicated that her friend Phoebe asked her to, and Phoebe does babysit her children.
Others are so confident in Hillary that they feel her success in inevitable. Bethany, a 24 year old social worker, claims that “Hillary is such a strong woman that she doesn’t need anyone’s help to get to the top. She’s confident and determined, and when I stay at home instead of voting this Tuesday, I’ll prove to everyone that she won’t let a little thing like my one vote stop her from reaching her goals.”
Frank, 23, has an entirely different reasoning for attending Hillary rallies. “Hillary attracts a lot of female supporters, and quite a few of them are real lookers, if you know what I mean. Let me tell you, there’s nothing like the promise of change to get a woman fired up.” Frank informed us that he planned to vote for Barack Obama this Tuesday.
With less than a week before the primary, some Hillary supporters are alarmed at the percentage of Hillary supporters not willing to vote for Hillary, which is up two percent from a similar poll taken a week ago. Others like Eva, 31, are unfazed. “87% is an incredible amount of support. With such a majority, there’s no way Hillary can lose.” http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s2i33952
Hillary Clinton Commemorated in Latest Ben and Jerry’s Ice Cream - EmbellishMint
Packaged in an environmentally safe container, as all Ben and Jerry products are, the pint-sized carton displays flowing fields of lush emerald green mint pastures rolling to a remarkable golden cartoon sunset, the small smiling face of Senator Clinton displayed in the center of the largest meadow. The eye-catching artwork was the brain-child of staff artisan and carton muralist, Myron Smalls.
“I wanted to make sure that the labeling truly represented the feeling of standing in a field of fresh mint”, Myron told food reporters at the brief Waterbury release party outside the company factory. “I wanted people to be able to almost smell the mint through the glass display doors at their local grocers,” he added with a proud smile.
While some people may be unfamiliar with the company’s long-standing sense of humor, and will probably be disappointed by what they find once they have bought their first container of Hillary’s EmbellishMint, most Americans will get a good laugh once they realize that each lavishly mint decorated carton is actually filled with nothing more than pure Vanilla with a carefully placed drop of green food coloring in the center.http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s2i33965
I have come up with my own scenario of what would happen if the two Democratic heavyweights show up tomorrow night in Greenville, S.C., for Raw:
Obama comes to the ring first and soaks up the cheers of the crowd for about 30 seconds before dramatically raising the microphone to his mouth.
“Finally, Barack has come back to Greenville!” he says.
The charismatic Obama talks some smack about Clinton, and then waits for her to make her entrance. At that point, Bill Clinton appears on the stage, and he’s pushing Hillary in a wheelchair. She appears to be in a catatonic state.
Bill helps her into the ring and seats her back in the wheelchair, as Obama looks confused. Bill explains that Hillary caught him in the divas’ locker room earlier and she was livid. Bill says he couldn’t calm her down, so when she wasn’t looking, he slipped some sedatives into her water. He says that Vince McMahon told him that’s how he should handle a wife who meddles in his affairs. “I just wish Vince would have told me that about 10 years ago,” Bill says.
Obama then declares that he is the winner of the match by default. Suddenly, Hillary rises from the wheelchair and kicks Bill below the belt, sending the former president crumbling to the mat. “Oh, man, I feel your pain,” Obama says as he clutches his own lower abdomen.
Hillary picks up a microphone and explains that she got some advice on how to handle a philandering husband from Linda McMahon, so she only pretended to drink the spiked water.
“And now you’re next,” she says to Obama. He takes a defensive stance and tries to reason with her. Obama says he doesn’t think they should fight because they are really on the same side. He extends his hand as a gesture of friendship.
Hillary hesitates, unsure of whether to trust him. Finally, she shakes his hand, and then the two candidates raise each other’s arms in a show of solidarity.
All of a sudden, Obama decks Hillary, knocking her out cold.
“You see, Hillary,” he says standing over her, “it’s like I’ve been telling you all along. I’m all about change.”
He opens his clenched fist to reveal a roll of quarters.
Before walking off, Obama delivers one final line: “If you smell what Barack is cookin’!”
[D]uring the debate, Obama bungled his answers on tax policy, big time. Period. End of sentence. End of story. To my liberal friends in the media, all I can say is: Get over it. Your guy has a very poor grasp of basic economic principles.
First off, you don’t raise taxes during a recession. That’s a no-brainer. Second, doubling the capital-gains tax rate will affect Americans up and down the income ladder, not just rich hedge-fund managers. In addition, capital-gains tax cuts are self-financing, and they stimulate jobs and the economy. You want to raise budget revenues and spark economic growth? Cut the cap-gains tax rate. That’s what history shows. …
Obama also proposed uncapping the payroll tax, another blunder that will hit people up and down the income ladder. While Obama pledges tax hikes only for folks earning more that $200,000 a year, his tax hike on payrolls would actually slam middle-income earners. The cap on wages subject to the payroll tax is presently $102,000. By eliminating that cap Obama will be soaking veteran firemen, cops, teachers, and health-service workers, along with a variety of other occupations.
In fact, in America’s largest cities, a firefighter married to a school teacher can earn close to $200,000 filing jointly. So not only will each spouse separately pay more for Social Security and health care under Obama’s plan, together they’ll also be slammed by Obama’s cap-gains tax increase. …
Obama’s real agenda is far-liberal left. It’s an ideology that places income redistribution above economic growth. That’s his real message. And it’s the same one that sunk Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry. …
What I’m saying is that liberals need to quit blaming Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos for Obama’s shortcomings. Instead, they need to blame Obama for failing to grasp how tax penalties on upward mobility will hurt the very people he thinks he’s going to help. …
That’s exactly why wealth-redistribution plans always backfire. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is a surefire economic loser. So is putting government in charge of the economy, which is what Mr. Obama is proselytizing. …
Political_mama
Posted April 20, 2008 at 3:54 pm | Permalink
Poor Max. He’s so in defense of this administration and this FANTASTIC way of life that he’s gotta try to bring up anything at all to make the opponent look bad. To bad he’s not American. Americans care for America.
————————————————-
Poor Mary, I see you found a way to pay the light bill. Just how is it those nasty Republicans raised your energy costs?
Did the Republicans stop the Democrats from drilling for more oil in Anwar and the continental shelf?
Did the Republicans raise your taxes? Cut your welfare?
Nathan you have a choice; Either believe what your eyes saw and your ears heard or believe what Pmom and her lib friends decided really happened. Your choice
Sigh. . . not false, just a false impression, like this was some idea that Dawkins (not “Hawkins”) advocated. I haven’t seen this stupid movie, but my understanding is that Dawkins was asked if there was any way possible that life on Earth could originate from some sort of “intelligent design.” Dawkins responded honestly, as I would have expected.
Incidently, no credible scientist–not even a resolute atheist like Dawkins–would claim that creation of life on this planet by some super-powerful, highly-advanced creature (God or whatever) was impossible . They simply argue that
(1) From an empirical, scientific perspective, the hard evidence isn’t there.
(2) the supernatural cannot be introduced into science, as it then makes it possible at any point to cite supernatural (i.e. the unseen and/or unexplainable) as an “explanation”–what the Greeks called Deux ex machina (literallly, “God out of a box”). One might as well simply stop asking questions, declare “God did it!” and go home!
(3) The motiviation of the ID people, clearly is to attack evolutionary theory, and not to propose any alternative explanation for the vast array of things that evolution explains. Taken as science, “Intelligent Design” is at best a weak hypothesis, and one which invariably relies on asserting on something unproven, and then shifting the burden to others to disprove it.
(4) The deeper motivation of the ID people is, clearly, to “defend” faith in God against a hallucinated, largely nonexistent attack from science. This is not to say that scientific findings don’t occasionally come in conflict with the most rigid aspects of church doctine. Invariably, thought, this happens when when the church insists on making specific, falsifiable claims about the natural world –which is, unavoidably, science’s domain–science doesn’t and shouldn’t interfere in the realm of faith!
P.S. It almost seems pointless to mention this, in addition, but the origin of life on this planet has nothing to do with evolution, except in the minds of creationists.
The movie didn’t attempt to say the orgin of life was part of Evolution either.
The point made by the movie was the level of absurd beliefs science has to offer for the first life form.
Also, it is rather absurd for someone to say “assume life” now Evolution.
That was the point being made. One you Evolution supporters purposefully avoid like the plague because you realise how much of a hard time you would have answering the question.
Again, there are many people who favor looking at things from an ID persepctive who do not believe in God or are trying to defend faith.
Another point the movie was making.
Just another one of your false attacks on anyone who would dare support ID. Label them as only trying to defend their faith or insert God into the discussion.
ID is creationism lite, and obviously so, for reasons posted here ad nauseum , but whatever.
Another point the movie was making.
Yes, another lie. Like the lies that equate evolutinary with Nazi ideology (news travels fast).
Just another one of your false attacks on anyone who would dare support ID. Label them as only trying to defend their faith or insert God into the discussion.
One could point to the numerous documents and statements by ID’s proponents themselves that prove this, but, okay, Nathan. Find me a single atheist who supports ID.
Just one. We’ll go from there.
You, of course, can try to turn this around to the ridiculous argument that evolution is somehow an atheist ideology. But then that requires explaining the millions of religious people–and religious scientists who support it.
And the problem with God is that you are assuming an entity existing prior to the universe that had the power to create it; and your explanation is: “God just is.”
Well, so can the universe just “be.” However there is a way out for all. God and the universe are the same thing.
One of the sleaziest documentaries to arrive in a very long time, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” is a conspiracy-theory rant masquerading as investigative inquiry. …the film relies extensively on the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy — after this, therefore because of this…
Prominent evolutionary biologists, like the author and Oxford professor Richard Dawkins — accurately identified on screen as an “atheist” — are provided solely to construct, in cleverly edited slices, an inevitable connection between Darwinism and godlessness. Blithely ignoring the vital distinction between social and scientific Darwinism, the film links evolution theory to fascism (as well as abortion, euthanasia and eugenics), shamelessly invoking the Holocaust with black-and-white film of Nazi gas chambers and mass graves.
Every few minutes familiar — and ideologically unrelated — images interrupt the talking heads: … This is not argument, it’s circus, a distraction from the film’s contempt for precision and intellectual rigor. This goes further than a willful misunderstanding of the scientific method. …
Mixing physical apples and metaphysical oranges at every turn “Expelled” is an unprincipled propaganda piece that insults believers and nonbelievers alike. In its fudging, eliding and refusal to define terms, the movie proves that the only expulsion here is of reason itself.
Amazing Outlander… Darwin was a VERY religious person… a devout Christian of his time… How Darwin could be linked to Atheism is one of the spurilous claims of the anti Science mongrels… as always…
It takes somebody with a definite mental deficiency to turn away from scientific discovery in the face of so much scientific FACT today, compared to when Darwin lived!!
Every scientific argument that the Christian Church has historically attempted to RULE on has been proven totally wrong!!
Is the CHURCH wrong?? not at all!! Theology and Science may have some common ground… but basically, its apples and oranges…. Science deals in how’s and when’s and if’s… Theology deals in Faith, Love, and he WHY of life… Those things are not intended to be run through the spectrum that is Science…
I think Square Peg hit the nail on the head Friday >>>> LOL
===============================================
SquarePeg
Posted April 18, 2008 at 5:38 pm | Permalink
THEME SONG FOR MAX’S DAILY RANT
They’re Coming to Take Me Away
Napoleon the 14th
Remember when you ran away
And I got on my knees and begged you
Not to go because I’d go berserk?
WELL,
You left me anyhow and
Then the days got worse and worse
And now you see I’ve gone completely
out of my mind,
AND
[1st chorus]
They’re coming to take my guns,
Haha, then they’re coming to take me too,
Ho ho, hee hee, ha ha,
To the funny farm
Where Life is Beautiful all the time
And I’ll be happy to see
Those Nice Young Men
In their Clean White Coats
And they’re coming to take me AWAY,
HA HAAAAA
You thought it was a joke,
and so you LAUGHED, YOU LAUGHED
When I had said that losing my guns
Would make me flip my lid,
RIGHT?
You know you laughed.
I HEARD you laugh, you laughed
And laughed and laughed
And then you left,
And now you see I’m Utterly Mad
AND
[second chorus]
They’re coming to take my guns,
Haha, then they’re coming to take me too,
Ho ho, hee hee, ha ha,
To the Happy Home with Trees and Flowers
And Chirping Birds and basket weavers
Who sit and smile and
Twiddle their thumbs and toes
And they’re coming to Take me Away,
HAHAAAAAAAAA
I earned my food,
I built my house,
And this is how you pay me back
For all my unkind selfish capitalist deeds
RIGHT?
Well, you just wait,
They’ll get you yet,
And when they do, they’ll put you in
the ASPCA, you mangy MUTT,
AND
(chorus 1)
(chorus 2)
(chorus 1 trailing into mumbles in the distance)
To you Libs who don’t support the 2nd Amendment, then you should be happy with voting for either Clinton or Obama.
To you Libs who DO support the 2nd Amendment, then if you read just one article about Barack Obama, then this is the one article that you should read:
Barack Obama’s Slippery Oratory
by Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President
NRA Standing Guard - April 11, 2008
To understand Barack Obama on the Second Amendment, you have to know about the clash of character between the then-Chicago state senator and an ordinary citizen who exercised his right to armed self-defense in violation of a local gun ban.
That citizen was a 52-year-old resident of Wilmette, Illinois, who, on Dec. 28, 2003, woke to find that, during the night, his home had been invaded by a career criminal; a thief who stole household items, keys and the homeowner’s car.
The victim, Hale DeMar, described his fear in a letter to the Chicago Sun- Times: “For me, the seconds until I found my children still safely tucked in their beds were horrifying . . . The police were called and in routine fashion they came, took the report and with little concern left, promising to increase surveillance. Little comfort, since the invader now had keys to our home and our automobiles. The police informed me that this was not an uncommon event in east Wilmette and offered their condolences . . .” Not 24 hours after the first burglary, the thief returned. Using DeMar’s house keys, the man entered the home, this time setting off the alarm system, automatically notifying the security company. Given the previous night’s lackluster response by police, DeMar was prepared, armed with a handgun–legally purchased years before and kept in a safe. But under Wilmette’s gun ban, that firearm in the home was illegal.
DeMar confronted the criminal, and believing his children were in danger, shot the burglar, who then fled the home.
“Until you are shocked by a piercing alarm in the middle of the night and met in your kitchen by a masked invader as your children shudder in their beds, until you confront that very real nightmare, please don’t suggest that some village trustee knows better … “If my actions have spared only one family from the distress and trauma that this habitual criminal has caused hundreds of others, then I have served my civic duty and taken one evil creature off of our streets, something that our impotent criminal justice system had failed to do, despite some thirty odd arrests, plea bargains and suspended sentences.” The burglar, who was arrested after driving DeMar’s stolen SUV to a hospital, had an extensive criminal record.
Cook County prosecutors ultimately declared DeMar’s use of a firearm to be justified. But Wilmette village officials pressed nonetheless to prosecute him for illegal possession of his handgun–a charge punishable by a huge fine and jail time. A town official was quoted in Reason magazine saying, “We need to set the example that we’re trying to protect our citizens.” And he said, DeMar–by possessing a legally purchased handgun–”is endangering innocent civilians.” The outcry of the Illinois public was heard all the way to the state capitol.
As a result, the Illinois House and Senate passed legislation in May 2004 to protect citizens who use handguns in self-defense in their homes or businesses despite local handgun bans.
The House accepted the DeMar selfdefense bill by a vote of 86-25 and the Senate moved the legislation on a 38-20 vote.
And here lies the seminal moment for state Senator Barack Obama. When Obama turned thumbs down on the bill, he voted against the most basic element of the Second Amendment– the right of defense of self and family– the reason that millions of Americans own firearms.
When the governor vetoed the bill, Obama once again voted against a citizen’s right to self-defense.
Despite his vote, the veto override passed the Senate and the House by overwhelming majorities, thereby enacting this bill into law.
Now, fast forward to today’s slippery oratory of U.S. Sen. Barack Obama just three years from being an unknown state senator–now morphed by the media into a spellbinding u.s. senator seeking to be president of the United States.
Using words like “protecting sportsmen,” Obama is now saying that he believes in the Second Amendment … but with almost universal exceptions, all of which he lists under the heading of “common sense gun safety laws.” “Common sense gun safety” and the Second Amendment? Like endorsing the D.C. gun ban, which outlaws armed self-defense in the home–now being challenged before the u.s. Supreme Court. Obama, who as president would be in the position to nominate justices to that high court, has declared that the d.c. ban doesn’t violate the Second Amendment.
“Common sense gun safety” and the Second Amendment? In a “1998 National Political Awareness Test,” he pledged to support a “Ban [on] the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons”–meaning most handguns and many rifles and shotguns that you and I own.
“Common sense gun safety” and the Second Amendment? Like demanding that the federal government preempt the 40 hard-won state laws creating Right-to-Carry.
Here’s how the Chicago Tribune put it: “Obama said he opposed allowing ordinary citizens to carry concealed weapons and that a federal law banning concealed carried weapons except for law enforcement is needed.” “Common sense gun safety” and the Second Amendment? Like the draconian proposals funded to the tune of $18,000,000 by the rabidly anti-gun Joyce Foundation while Obama was an activist member of its board of directors.
Obama’s alleged support of the Second Amendment is utterly cynical and false. Barack Obama is not for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms; he`s out to destroy it.
Maybe the 2nd Amendment is important to you, but you don’t see it as being more important then the Social Welfare programs you hope the Liberal Democrats Clinton and Obama will bring to you.
If there is any ONE part of the US Constitution you should NOT sacrifice for some perceived promises of social comforts, the 2nd Amendment is the most important one to protect.
If your candidate does not believe you have the right to protect your own life, then what rights will your candidate save for you?
If my choice was to vote for a solid pro-2nd Amendment Liberal Democrat vs a Republican (RHINO) candidate who was agaisnt the 2nd Amendment, I would vote Democrat every time.
Will you Libs who support the 2nd Amendment actually vote for Clinton or Obama?
It took a lot of work, but Max has reached Parkay status - strictly scroll over nonsense - one of the few that has absolutely nothing to add to the discussion.
As for ID - Creationism - Evolution?
If you won’t teach your religion in my science class, I won’t teach science in your church.
Fair enough?
If not, please provide the SCIENTIFIC evidence to support your theory - not the Bible - but scientific evidence.
By the way, a lack of complete evolutionary evidence does NOT PROVE ID.
Actually Chas I think you will find that by his own definition Darwin was an agnostic. He wavered back and forth but at the age of 70 described himself thus.
“Did Darwin destroy Christianity? Darwin said no. In 1879 atheist John Fordyce wrote Darwin asking whether evolution and God were compatible. Darwin replied that it was absurd to doubt whether anyone could ardently believe in God and be an evolutionist, and gave the examples of his friends, Asa Gray and Charles Kingsley. He then stressed he had never been an atheist and was best considered an agnostic. With that view of Darwin at 70, we can leave the question.”
Dear Members and Friends of The Clergy Letter Project,
As many of you know, Ben Stein’s anti-evolution and anti-intellectual movie, Expelled, was released yesterday. One of the main points the movie makes is that accepting evolution leads directly to atheism. This ridiculous claim is one of many that numerous reviews have attempted to dismiss. More often than not, I’m delighted to say, the evidence used is the existence of The Clergy Letter. The fact that more than 11,100 clergy members from across the United States have signed a statement in support of evolution is making a big difference in countering this claim.
Indeed, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the nation’s largest scientific organization released a statement condemning the film yesterday (http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2008/media/0418aaas_statement.pdf).
The statement begins by saying, “For more than a decade, the nonprofit American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) has been working to build a constructive bridge between scientific and religious communities through its Dialogue on Science, Ethics and Religion and other programs. There also have been many efforts by religious leaders to accomplish the same goal. For example, more than 11,000 clergy have signed an open letter supporting the view that faith and science should be seen as complementary, not competing.” The statement goes on to say that, “We were therefore especially disappointed to learn that the producers of an intelligent design propaganda movie called ‘Expelled’ are inappropriately pitting science against religion.”
Obviously our efforts are being noticed and are making a difference.
I urge you to read the full AAAS statement (at the link above) and to explore a web site set up by the National Center for Science Education entitled Expelled Exposed http://www.expelledexposed.com) if you want to learn more about this movie.
Because of the increased attention The Clergy Letter Project is receiving, this would be a great time to increase the number of clergy who have signed The Clergy Letter, to increase the number of scientists willing to serve as consultants to The Clergy Letter Project and to increase the number of participants in Evolution Weekend 2009 (13-15 February 2009). Please help!!
If your congregation is willing to participate in Evolution Weekend 2009, please let me know. Although it is about 10 months before the event, we already have more than 70 congregations representing 36 states and four countries on board. I’ll post the full list of participants soon, but I’d like for all states to represented when I do that. So please sign up now. And please think about circulating the flyer I’ve created for the event (http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/pdf/evolution%20weekend%202009.doc) to friends and colleagues and on any listserve to which you might subscribe.
Please help spread the word to clergy and scientists and encourage the former to sign The Letter and the letter to enroll as consultants. As you do so, watch our numbers swell and watch our message that religion and science need not be at war take root around the globe.
Because of your efforts to date, we have much to be proud of. Thank you! Unfortunately, there is still a very real need for our message to be heard.
Michael Zimmerman
Office of the Dean
College of Liberal Arts and Sciences
Butler University
Indianapolis, IN 46208
ksgrm
Posted April 20, 2008 at 7:18 pm | Permalink
Actually Chas I think you will find that by his own definition Darwin was an agnostic. He wavered back and forth but at the age of 70 described himself thus.
Chas
Posted April 20, 2008 at 7:20 pm |
Permalink
Granny, I think you should re-check your history… LOL
Chas
Posted April 20, 2008 at 7:32 pm | Permalink
From your own quote, Grm >>>>
“He then stressed he had never been an atheist and was best considered an agnostic.”
Well Chas I rechecked the post and my original statement that he was agnostic and not Christian stands the same. Where is the inaccuracy? Do you argue with yourself much?
“Yet for forty years in Downe, Kent, Darwin was a pillar of the church–of the flying-buttress type– supporting it by good works and generosity from the outside! All his life he supported the evangelical South American Missionary Society, and even Bishop Samuel Wilberforce, his strongest opponent, thought him a capital fellow. And so do I!
It is often claimed that Darwin destroyed belief in a six-day creation. After twenty-five years of research, I have not found one Anglican clergyman who held to a six-day creation in 1860, so how could Darwin destroy that belief? (If you ever read that Darwin destroyed belief in a six-day creation, then consider the writer a monkey rather than descended from apes!)”
KsGrm — your attitude toward Darwin, as well as others here, is that Darwinism is equal to atheism… Which is obviously NOT true. So, you might remember that when you make the assertions that Evolution is “atheistic”
Chas are you delusional? Where have I ever said evolution was atheistic. You know you really don’t need anyone else on the blog. You can present all sides of every argument and then agree or disagree with yourself. This is a waste of my time.
Germ, a person can be agnostic and still be a Christian.
Agnosticism (Greek: ?- a-, without + ?????? gn?sis, knowledge; after Gnosticism) is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of God, gods, deities, or even ultimate reality — is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently unknowable due to the nature of subjective experience perceived by that individual.
Demographic research services normally list agnostics in the same category as atheists and non-religious people[1], using ‘agnostic’ in the newer sense of ‘noncommittal’[2]. However, this can be misleading given the existence of agnostic theists, who identify themselves as both agnostics in the original sense and followers of a particular religion.
“From the posts here I guess no one was surprised when the ‘victim’ call was found to be from a 40 old woman who is an Obama delegate. It does seem to be a dem/lib position that gross atrocities were taking place but so far this hasn’t been proved.”
[KsGrm]
============================
Grm, You REALLY need some kind of a valid link to that line of Hooey!! Last newsd I heard is that the woman has been found to have made false alarm claims in the past… But an Obama delegate??? GET REAL!
I do believe your religious faith discourages lying, and bearing false witness!!
A person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
Reg an agnostic is someone who won’t make a declaration either for or against a diety. Therefore to say Darwin was a strong Christian as Chas tried to do is simply false.
I didnt say it granny — that came direct from YOUR article!!
Also, any educated clergyman KNOWS that Darwin studied for the ordained ministry!! At age SEVENTY he determined he was an agnostic (Never doubted the existence of Deity) jost wasnt an orthodox christian!!
All of which has NOTHING to with The Origin of Species!!!
Not really: logically, it’s a declaration of uncertainty. An honest position in its own right. One can still believe, and doubt.
—————————————-
There goes that word again, “uncertainty.”
It’s what scientists use when they don’t know what they are talking about.
—————————————
I don’t care if CapnAmerica shows up. He can’t brandish a fire arm in a public place anyway, even if kidding - it’s illegal. He should know that “if” he has CC license.
Interesting Chas. The guy writing your copy and paste is Michael Zimmerman. This guy is a college professor who is organizing liberal churches. He is peddling “Evolution Weekend 2008″. What will the participating churches worship that weekend?
I wonder when “Theory of Relativity Weekend” is?
“In an odd coincidence, a person named Rozita E. Swinton of Colorado Springs is listed on the El Paso County Democratic Party website as an Obama delegate.”
Chas ck this out. I just think it is funny that a dem activist is probably the one who started the entire thing.
It’s entirely possible that there are several Rozita E Swintons in Colorado Springs. It is such a common name kinda like Jim Jones.
Regular
Posted April 20, 2008 at 8:01 pm | Permalink
Rage
Posted April 20, 2008 at 7:37 pm | Permalink
Senator Webb (D, Virginia, packs heat.
So does CapnAmerica
———————-
With his attitude, I can understand why.
————————————————-
I see nothin wrong with Capn ‘packinig’. Disagree with his views yes, but as long as he is legaly carrying, that’s his right.
As for Webb, great. Support for the 2nd Amendment should not be a partisan issue, though there are many Democrats who do not support the 2nd Amendment.
Too assert that all ID proponents are creationist is just as much a false claim as if I were to say all Evolutionists were athiests.
Athiesm and Creationism are wrold views. Of course I would be hard pressed to show you that an Athiest is a believer in ID. Why on Earth would an Atheist lean toward a belief which is practically incompatable with their underlying world view?
So to say I must show you an Athiest who believes in ID is a Red Herring.
For the same reason that Atheists are drawn to accept the belief in Evolution is indeed the same reason Creationists would be drawn to accept ID.
For either of us to assert that then both Evolution and ID MUST be comprised of either creationists and atheists respectivly is false.
260 Comments
There is not a single instance in history where hate has brought joy to human beings.
It is a negative force that serves only to destroy those who hold it in their mind and body.
If the majority of humanity released all hate, fear, and resentment, wars would disappear from our planet.
-Rhonda Byrne from The Secret
Removing a neighbor because they remind us of they situation we are also in, only invites others to remove us because we are declaring weakness. Love thy neighbor and work with them. They can help build a community instead of just living next door. You can help build a community instead of just living next door. Build strength, not bigotry and denial. Herbert West III, west.herb@yahoo.com http://www.wen2k.com
Removing a neighbor because they remind us of the situation we are also in, only invites others to remove us because we are declaring weakness. Love thy neighbor and work with them. They can help build a community instead of just living next door. You can help build a community instead of just living next door. Build strength, not bigotry and denial. Herbert West III, west.herb@yahoo.com http://www.wen2k.com
“HerbertWestIII” –
You can say that again!
“You can say that again!” — Monkeyhawk.
He will, again and again and again.
wtf is this? Herbie you never show any love for a neighbor.
Rhonda Byrne should have added greed to her list. It’s what often fuels the hate, fear, and resentment.
Or pick and choose from any of Pope Gregory the Great’s 7 Deadly Sins:
Lust
Gluttony
Greed
Sloth
Wrath
Envy
Pride
At least one of them can be applied to each and every war fought by man.
Unless Herb, the neighborhood where you live is a breakaway Mormon sect ranch. Then, even if you had nothing to do with any wrongdoing, your children can be ripped away from you permanently by the government on the basis of a faked phone call. And since you have chosen a life style different from the rest and people think you are strange, you have no due process.
Good one Predestined! However the seven deadly sins can trace their roots back to hate, fear, or resentment pretty easily.
For example, greed is based on fear of a lack of abundance.
Most sins are a result fear.
Hitler used fear and hatred to mobilize the German people much like Bush uses fear and hatred today.
oops…result OF fear.
stop lying outlander, they are getting their due process. You’re all teh same people who defend the waco child abuse too. I guess nothing is wrong anymore to republicans. Civil rights only to the men.
Outlander lives a fear based life. Perfect example of what is wrong with America.
Well Mom, it doesn’t sound to me like the women are getting their civil rights. Most of them have done nothing wrong and yet, they have their children ripped away from them WITHOUT DUE PROCESS.
A fine advocate of women’s rights you are. Only liberal women, right mom?
Outlander writes:
Most of them have done nothing wrong and yet, they have their children ripped away from them WITHOUT DUE PROCESS.
Were you there? How do you know this?
The libs are afraid of the goverment collecting bulk information on phone calls.
But if it’s religious nuts having their children taken from them without due process, no biggie.
outlander
Posted April 20, 2008 at 9:16 am | Permalink
The libs are afraid of the goverment collecting bulk information on phone calls.
We aren’t afraid outie, but we know when the Bush admin violated the Constitution and have every right to call foul.
For you obamaniacs:
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/s_563329.html
“Civil rights only to the men.” — p.m.
Some of the mothers offered to leave the compound in exchange for the return of their children. This was denied.
Although the case does have amusing angles. Just imagine one of those old Mormon patriarchs being hounded for child support for his 50 children.
Despite claims to the contrary, parental rights are considered a pretty fundamental right in this country. Due process will take place. In the cases of suspected child abuse, the potential danger to helpless victims is seen as a factor making the removal of children until it is determined they can be safe, a reasonable process. Is this traumatic for parents, and sometimes children? I would definitely say yes. But as a recent death of a young child in Wichita demonstrates, there can be worse outcomes.
I recall people making religious freedom arguments about the Branch Davidians (sp), too. I think as the evidence came out, it was pretty clear that those children were exposed to very serious abuse.
The Wichita Eagle is doing its’ part to define community standards by allowing the porno-related postings on its WEBlog where school children are allowed to see them.
I have a close friend who’s written a book and produced a British television expose on the Warren Jeffs cult.
As with most things, people are missing the real societal problem. Don’t be distracted by the forced marriages, religious freedom, the bed-in-the-temple, etc…
Jeffs built his communities by leaching off the taxpayers of Utah, Arizona, and Texas. Since polygamy is illegal all the 2nd, 3rd, 8th wives of these guys are, in the eyes of the state, indigent unwed mothers… and so qualify for all sorts of government benefits.
The media plays up the sex angle but it’s a welfare scam. Pure and simple.
Outlander, If these Mothers are adult women who stand by and allow children to be abused they are not innocent.
We don’t need cheaper gas, we need alternate forms of energy. Reducing the price of gas short term does nothing to solve the underlying problem.
Many problems could be solved if we weren’t so dependant on fossil fuels.
IF
Isn’t this a classic case, Linda, of presumed guilt by association?
A hypothetical if I might. What if say, two of the neighbors on the same street you live on were accused on abusing their children. And let’s add to it the fact that they went to same church as you.
Would it be fair for the authorities to assume that your children are in peril and to take them from you?
Not a perfect analogy Linda, but not too far off.
OPPS..wrong thread!
…and a happy four twenty to all.
heheheheh!
I see what you’re trying to say in your analogy Outlander. We both know there are differences in my neighborhood and the one these women live in. I am sad for the children and the Mothers but I want it investigated and if there are youngsters being involved in what should be adult sexual behavior it is a lifestyle they need to be protected and removed from.
Bull outlander, it’s not the same thing.
The same thing would be if someone called the police on me saying I starved my child….and they got there and found nicely fat children, but one of them beaten black and blue…so they take all the children. Note, even though the INITIAL complaint was false, they still did what was in the best interest of the CHILDREN.
These parents aren’t even parents. They do what they are told to do, they have no free will. The men rule and torture-yes torture the women and children to get them to comply. The ENTIRE society- men and women- who stand by and allow this are GUILTY and should be tried even if it is just someone who stood idly by and allowed the abuse to happen.
I AM an advocate of women’s rights, so I might MIGHT let the women who didn’t know better off. But the older ones who knew what they were doing they should be in prison for accessory to child rape and abuse.
It’ll take a long time to sort it out. That’s why nobody has been ARRESTED yet. But I’m sure that they will be.
I fail to see how ANYONE, left or right, can defend this Mormon cult in Texas. This goes way beyond a matter or partisanship. Some of these young women, well under the age of sixteen, have already made children or are pregnant. By definition this is statutory rape and child abuse. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, these mothers have allowed this to happen to their under aged daughters.
The authorities are doing the best they can, given the huge number, 416, of children involved. It will take time to sort out this disgusting mess, but it is best to err on the side of protecting the children.
To assume that the children will be fine with their mothers is an invitation to disaster.
From the posts here I guess no one was surprised when the ‘victim’ call was found to be from a 40 old woman who is an Obama delegate. It does seem to be a dem/lib position that gross atrocities were taking place but so far this hasn’t been proved.
MH I like you think they have mastered the welfare scams. Also know how to get grants with hundreds of thousands in tax payer dollars going to build the infrastructure in this compound. Over $400,000 to build water treatment plant for their private use financed by us the state of Texas.
That said we have to look at it without prejuidice. The wholesome seizure of hundreds of children doesn’t pass the smell test.
Well, my father and I went to see Expelled last night.
I must say it was even better than I expected.
I love the part where Ben Stein is interviewing Dr. Hawkins and Hawkins says that he believes it might be possible that another advanced civilization could have seeded life here on Earth.
Then there was the other Evolution proponent who believed life began from crystals.
When asked to explain how, he acted like Ben was ignorant for not grasping the concept. It’s crystals, duh!
#
ksfarmgrrl
Posted April 20, 2008 at 10:24 am | Permalink
…and a happy four twenty to all.
heheheheh!
————————————–
You’re not one of those farmers that grows their cannabis on their neighbors side of the fence so you don’t get in trouble do you?
Well, well, well: so Senator Intemperance–sorry, Senator McCain–apparently got into a shoving match with Senator Charles Grassley after Grassely took umbrage at being called a profane name by Senator McCain.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/19/AR2008041902224_pf.html
Way to go Repukes, succeeding an alcoholic President with a rageaholic candidate.
As for the WaPo’s critical coverage, I guess they’re a bit embarrassed at having so obviously been so far up McCain’s ass.
Women drivers:
http://spaceports.blogspot.com/2008/04/ballistic-re-entry-for-soyuz-tma-11.html
Departing the International Space Station last evening, South Korean Spaceflight Participant Yi So-Yeon, Russian flight-engineer Yuri Malenchenko and the US Commander Peggy Whitson boarded the Soyuz TMA-11 capsule only to ride a flaming hot “ballistic re-entry” - an uncontrollable, steep trajectory, much shorter than the planned path home exposing the crew to 10 times normal Earth gravity. But all ended safely after the spacecraft landed near the Kazakh border, south-east of the Russian city of Orsk and 260-miles off course. [Video 1 and Video 2 and The New York Times]
Oddly, in a unusal statement to reports post-landing Russian Federal Space Agency chief Anatoly Perminov seemed to blame women being on the Soyuz for the spacecraft being off course and in the ballastic re-entry telling AP: “You know in Russia, there are certain bad omens about this sort of thing, but thank God that everything worked out successfully. Of course in the future, we will work somehow to ensure that the number of women will not surpass [the number of men]. This isn’t discrimination. I’m just saying that when a majority [of the crew] is female, sometimes certain kinds of unsanctioned behavior or something else occurs, that’s what I’m talking about.”
CF2K, the Muppet Poster, almost had my attention until I realized he was talking about a 1992 incident.
Then the be “Zzzzzz” factor kicked in…
CF2K, the Muppet Poster, almost had my attention until I realized he was talking about a 1992 incident.
Then the big “Zzzzzz” factor kicked in…
modified the post in mid-stream
Clinton Culture of Corruption Campaign Continues
http://baltimorechronicle.com/2008/041908Burns.shtml
The Clintons, Triangulating with China
Bashing “Chinese money” in public, accepting it in private.
Any role played by Bill Clinton in dealings between a Chinese state-owned company and a U.S. company should be vetted during a presidential campaign.
1) The first of these more businesslike Clinton-China connections is California billionaire and ‘Hillraiser’ Ron Burkle, a high-end supporter who has raised over $100,000 for Hillary Clinton and who is reportedly paying $20 million to Bill Clinton as a settlement for Mr. Clinton’s services and ownership stake in Burkle’s private investment firm, The Yucaipa Companies.
In September 2007, Yucaipa agreed to purchase a major stake in Xinhua Finance Media, part of the Chinese government-owned media conglomerate Xinha. Under the deal, Chicago banker David Olson, a Yucaipa partner and Clinton supporter, became part of the board of Xinhua Finance Media as a director.
The benefits to Xinhua from the deal are apparent. The U.S.-listed securities of the overseas company rose to their highest level in more than three months after the announcement of the Yucaipa stake. The deal might not be a one-way street. A year before Burkle announced the purchase in Xinhua Finance Media, China’s Xinhua News Agency had instituted a demand that financial news services including Bloomberg and Reuters in China sell information through Xinhua.
This demand, the kind usually represented as communistic, anti-Western, or anti-free press, could dovetail neatly with some capitalist-running-dog interests.
Reporters for Xinhua, sensitive to a potential appearance of impropriety, have tried to balance coverage of the Clinton and Obama campaigns. The Clinton campaign has not responded to emailed questions and request for comment.
Clinton Culture of Corruption Campaign Continues
http://baltimorechronicle.com/2008/041908Burns.shtml
2) In March 2008, the Chicago Tribune reported another connection linking Bill Clinton with the Chinese news industry. Clinton was compensated for his support for an Internet company called Accoona, whose main partner is China Daily Information Co., a subsidiary of Chinese government-run China Daily, the country’s largest English-language newspaper.
Accoona, privately held, paid the former president with options for 200,000 shares of stock for the William J. Clinton Foundation. The Foundation sold the shares in 2006 for $700,000.
As the Tribune reported,
“Twice in the last year, Accoona filed, and subsequently withdrew, plans for a public offering, once on London’s AIM market and more recently in the U.S. on the NASDAQ exchange.
“Accoona’s prospectus for its aborted U.S. offering pointed to some of its difficulties. The company never had made a profit; a co-founder and major shareholder had pleaded guilty to a felony fraud charge; and Accoona’s key partner is a media company controlled by the Chinese government, which often is criticized for censoring the Internet….
“Accoona’s prospectus acknowledged that the company is subject to censorship by the Chinese government and that the “Ministry of Public Security has the authority to order any local Internet service provider to block any Internet Web site at its sole discretion…. Furthermore, we are required to report any suspicious content to relevant governmental authorities.”
China Daily put the Accoona search engine on the front page of its Web version.
Clinton Culture of Corruption Campaign Continues
http://baltimorechronicle.com/2008/041908Burns.shtml
3) A third and more personal China-Clinton connection is Sandy Berger, Bill Clinton’s National Security Advisor and recently a foreign policy advisor to the Clinton campaign. Samuel R. ‘Sandy’ Berger, as readers may recall, was the former Clinton national security chief who removed classified documents from a National Archives reading room in October 2003, shortly before Berger was to testify to the Independent 9/11 Commission. Berger reportedly took away one copy of five classified copies of a Millennial Plots report, produced for former counterterrorism advisor Richard Clarke, in September 2003, and then took away the four remaining copies of the report the next month, stowing them first in his clothing and then at a nearby construction site.
Like Ron Burkle, Sandy Berger is listed as a member of the Clinton Global Initiative, the foundation established by former president Clinton which has funded his presidential library.
Berger’s recent role as foreign policy advisor in Hillary Clinton’s 2008 campaign extends his previous roles as a fixture in foreign policy for both Clintons. Already developing global connections, Berger was then-Arkansas governor Bill Clinton’s foreign policy advisor during his presidential campaign, became Assistant Transition Director for National Security during the 1992 Clinton-Gore transition, moved into the Clinton administration as Deputy National Security Advisor and then became NSA.
Even back during the Clinton administration, Berger apparently did not want China to get in trouble with his boss the then-president. He delayed for more than a year to inform Bill Clinton that China had acquired designs of U.S. nuclear warheads.
Extending his longtime global connections, Berger is now co-Chairman and co-founder of Stonebridge International, a DC-based advisory firm which has made substantial contributions to the Clinton campaign and which offers its services to help companies expand in foreign markets including China (and Russia, India and Brazil). Berger is also on the board of a New York-based international hedge fund, DB Zwim Global Advisory, headed by substantial Clinton donor Daniel B. Zwim, with subsidiaries and interests around the world including a large Singapore concrete company. Berger’s Stonebridge bio says, “He is involved across nearly all the firm’s engagements and regions, with a particularly strong focus on Asia, Russia and Central Asia and the Middle East.”
Globalizing and big donors go together, of course. But any role played by Bill Clinton in dealings between a Chinese state-owned company and a U.S. company should be vetted during a presidential campaign.
Don’t You Dare Follow The Money!
Joan Swirsky
It’s been 34 years since “Deep Throat” advised Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein (as documented in their book, “All the Presidents Men”) to “follow the money” in the Watergate case that resulted in President Nixon’s ignominious resignation.
In rooting out political corruption, that advice still holds, one of the latest examples being the payment schedule that Democrat New York Governor Eliot Spitzer was caught on tape trying to negotiate with his prostitute of choice.
But Spitzer’s self-destructive, career-destroying behavior, like Nixon’s, is small potatoes compared to the filthy-lucre trail of Bill and Hillary Clinton.
In reviewing only a small number of the shady deals both Bill and Hillary have made over the years, it should be clear to any sane American that entrusting Hillary with the U.S. presidency will:
–Threaten our national security.
–Bankrupt our domestic policies.
–Contaminate every treaty and trade deal with questions about their legality.
Mire our system in four or eight more years of sleazy scandals.
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/challenges.php?id=1387260
CHINAGATE
In a riveting article, New York Times best-selling author Richard Poe says: “When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, China presented no threat to the United States…how did the Chinese catch up so fast? Easy. We sold them all the technology they needed – or handed it over for free. Neither neglect nor carelessness is to blame. Bill Clinton did it on purpose.”
“Federal investigators,” Poe continues, “later concluded that China made off with the `crown jewels’ of our nuclear weapons research…probably including design specifications for suitcase nukes.” The result: “China can now hit any city in the USA, using state-of-the-art solid-fueled missiles with dead-accurate, computerized guidance systems and multiple warheads.”
In short order, defense contractors, eager to sell technology to China, poured millions of dollars into Clinton’s 1996 presidential campaign. So grateful were the recipients that “Chinese intelligence organized a massive covert operation aimed at tilting the 1996 election Clinton’s way.”
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/challenges.php?id=1387260
Note: Will need to spend some more time on this nice summary of Clinton:
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/challenges.php?id=1387260
I dont hate my neighbor, I do demand they conduct themselves with others in mind instead of using them for “Personal Gain”. Communities are a 2 way street. Removing someone so we can gain onto their territory around us, is not cool. I posted twice too correct a misspelled word, berber. too political_mama, I give respect when I recieve it. I share with my neighbors. I expose trolls in our neighborhoods. Too outlander, please consider and look at “Volatile Situation” as a Legal definition. Would you walk away while an adult beats a child because they are the same ethnic background and the adult seems to be in control of the beaten child? Is the State wrong for protecting 12 year old wives with 2 and 3 kids? If the Poligamy Church or Ranch is so leagla, why are their Marriage Lisences not filed? If I at 41 were to be married to a 12 year old and had 2 and 3 kids with her, would I be wrong? In America, YEA! I believe in GOD. Why cant I have a 12 year old wife? Why do you want a 12 year old wife? I believe in “DUE PROCESS”. I also dont feel babies should be having babies. Thanks again Herbert West III, P.S. as a Baptist I would still be wrong. Catholics, Luthern, Mormon or any Religion, 12 years old and married to anyone is wrong. It is not a Religion, it is a Blasphamy. HLWIII, west.herb@yahoo.com http://www.wen2k.com
Poor Max. He’s so in defense of this administration and this FANTASTIC way of life that he’s gotta try to bring up anything at all to make the opponent look bad. To bad he’s not American. Americans care for America.
Note: More time will be spent on this story too:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/norman_hsu_who.html
April 14, 2008
Norman Hsu Who?
If and when the time comes to perform the autopsy on Hillary Clinton’s campaign, some will trace the start of its demise back to the Norman Hsu episode. Others will ask, “What’s a Norman shoe?”
First the WSJ broke the Norman Hsu story. Then, last October the LATimes broke the story of the vanishing NYC Chinatown donors (read a possible non-MSM explanation of what that was all about here). Neither story was completed. The “Drive-By’s” just shot them up and drove on down the road.
Meanwhile, where’s Hsu and what’s his story?
Rage (in case you didn’t see my post on the Bush thread):
If what Martin is trying to do on localization succeeds, consolidation is a dead issue. Already, FOX, CBS and NBC have sold some of their holdings. Disney is reportedly not far behind. The economy of scale for localization doesn’t work for big operators.
Plus, Martin has gotten NCTA and NAB to sit down on a long-term solution for LP and CA stations like mine. Nobody is reporting this (heaven forbid the Eagle step away from the Cox party line), but 2/3 of the television stations in this country WILL NOT go digital on 2/17/09.
There is legislation pending in Congress to fix this… in 2012. Martin has proposed a magnificent solution, whereby cable companies and full powers would loan space to other stations until they have their own digital signals, and speed the process for stations in that situation.
But Congress is too hung up on this Net Neutrality crap. It’s crap because it’s an anti-trust issue, and should be settled by the Judiciary Committee, not the Commerce Committee. Lost in Ted Stevens’ famous “the internet is a bunch of tubes” speech was a compromise where the Judiciary Committee would have heard net neutrality, leaving the Commerce Committee to discuss broadcast and cable issues in… a broadcast and cable bill. What a concept!
For that reason, Obama needs to leave Martin alone and let him finish his work in this area. Up to 117,000 American jobs are at stake here.
By the way Nathan, the quote was false from the movie. That was already discussed last night.
Hawkins was mocking the dude.
Overwhelming Majority Of Hillary Supporters Voting For Hillary
PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania (AP) — A new Gallup Poll released last Wednesday showed that out of a sample of 5834 Hillary Clinton supporters, 87% of them plan to cast their vote for her in the upcoming Pennsylvania Primary. Although most Hillary Supporters cite the same reasons in support of casting their votes for her, reasoning varies widely among those supporters that plan to vote against her or abstain from voting at all.
“I just don’t think my vote makes a difference,” stated Angela, 35. “Is Hillary going to come to my job and mandate a raise for me? Is she going to babysit my three children? I don’t think so.” When asked why she attended rallies at all, she indicated that her friend Phoebe asked her to, and Phoebe does babysit her children.
Others are so confident in Hillary that they feel her success in inevitable. Bethany, a 24 year old social worker, claims that “Hillary is such a strong woman that she doesn’t need anyone’s help to get to the top. She’s confident and determined, and when I stay at home instead of voting this Tuesday, I’ll prove to everyone that she won’t let a little thing like my one vote stop her from reaching her goals.”
Frank, 23, has an entirely different reasoning for attending Hillary rallies. “Hillary attracts a lot of female supporters, and quite a few of them are real lookers, if you know what I mean. Let me tell you, there’s nothing like the promise of change to get a woman fired up.” Frank informed us that he planned to vote for Barack Obama this Tuesday.
With less than a week before the primary, some Hillary supporters are alarmed at the percentage of Hillary supporters not willing to vote for Hillary, which is up two percent from a similar poll taken a week ago. Others like Eva, 31, are unfazed. “87% is an incredible amount of support. With such a majority, there’s no way Hillary can lose.” http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s2i33952
Hillary Clinton Commemorated in Latest Ben and Jerry’s Ice Cream - EmbellishMint
Packaged in an environmentally safe container, as all Ben and Jerry products are, the pint-sized carton displays flowing fields of lush emerald green mint pastures rolling to a remarkable golden cartoon sunset, the small smiling face of Senator Clinton displayed in the center of the largest meadow. The eye-catching artwork was the brain-child of staff artisan and carton muralist, Myron Smalls.
“I wanted to make sure that the labeling truly represented the feeling of standing in a field of fresh mint”, Myron told food reporters at the brief Waterbury release party outside the company factory. “I wanted people to be able to almost smell the mint through the glass display doors at their local grocers,” he added with a proud smile.
While some people may be unfamiliar with the company’s long-standing sense of humor, and will probably be disappointed by what they find once they have bought their first container of Hillary’s EmbellishMint, most Americans will get a good laugh once they realize that each lavishly mint decorated carton is actually filled with nothing more than pure Vanilla with a carefully placed drop of green food coloring in the center.http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s2i33965
Very nice story, of Hillary and Barak Wrestling:
I have come up with my own scenario of what would happen if the two Democratic heavyweights show up tomorrow night in Greenville, S.C., for Raw:
Obama comes to the ring first and soaks up the cheers of the crowd for about 30 seconds before dramatically raising the microphone to his mouth.
“Finally, Barack has come back to Greenville!” he says.
The charismatic Obama talks some smack about Clinton, and then waits for her to make her entrance. At that point, Bill Clinton appears on the stage, and he’s pushing Hillary in a wheelchair. She appears to be in a catatonic state.
Bill helps her into the ring and seats her back in the wheelchair, as Obama looks confused. Bill explains that Hillary caught him in the divas’ locker room earlier and she was livid. Bill says he couldn’t calm her down, so when she wasn’t looking, he slipped some sedatives into her water. He says that Vince McMahon told him that’s how he should handle a wife who meddles in his affairs. “I just wish Vince would have told me that about 10 years ago,” Bill says.
Obama then declares that he is the winner of the match by default. Suddenly, Hillary rises from the wheelchair and kicks Bill below the belt, sending the former president crumbling to the mat. “Oh, man, I feel your pain,” Obama says as he clutches his own lower abdomen.
Hillary picks up a microphone and explains that she got some advice on how to handle a philandering husband from Linda McMahon, so she only pretended to drink the spiked water.
“And now you’re next,” she says to Obama. He takes a defensive stance and tries to reason with her. Obama says he doesn’t think they should fight because they are really on the same side. He extends his hand as a gesture of friendship.
Hillary hesitates, unsure of whether to trust him. Finally, she shakes his hand, and then the two candidates raise each other’s arms in a show of solidarity.
All of a sudden, Obama decks Hillary, knocking her out cold.
“You see, Hillary,” he says standing over her, “it’s like I’ve been telling you all along. I’m all about change.”
He opens his clenched fist to reveal a roll of quarters.
Before walking off, Obama delivers one final line: “If you smell what Barack is cookin’!”
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/sports/wrestling/blog/2008/04/obama_vs_clinton_on_raw_what_if.html
A snippet on Obama (more to follow):
[D]uring the debate, Obama bungled his answers on tax policy, big time. Period. End of sentence. End of story. To my liberal friends in the media, all I can say is: Get over it. Your guy has a very poor grasp of basic economic principles.
First off, you don’t raise taxes during a recession. That’s a no-brainer. Second, doubling the capital-gains tax rate will affect Americans up and down the income ladder, not just rich hedge-fund managers. In addition, capital-gains tax cuts are self-financing, and they stimulate jobs and the economy. You want to raise budget revenues and spark economic growth? Cut the cap-gains tax rate. That’s what history shows. …
Obama also proposed uncapping the payroll tax, another blunder that will hit people up and down the income ladder. While Obama pledges tax hikes only for folks earning more that $200,000 a year, his tax hike on payrolls would actually slam middle-income earners. The cap on wages subject to the payroll tax is presently $102,000. By eliminating that cap Obama will be soaking veteran firemen, cops, teachers, and health-service workers, along with a variety of other occupations.
In fact, in America’s largest cities, a firefighter married to a school teacher can earn close to $200,000 filing jointly. So not only will each spouse separately pay more for Social Security and health care under Obama’s plan, together they’ll also be slammed by Obama’s cap-gains tax increase. …
Obama’s real agenda is far-liberal left. It’s an ideology that places income redistribution above economic growth. That’s his real message. And it’s the same one that sunk Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry. …
What I’m saying is that liberals need to quit blaming Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos for Obama’s shortcomings. Instead, they need to blame Obama for failing to grasp how tax penalties on upward mobility will hurt the very people he thinks he’s going to help. …
That’s exactly why wealth-redistribution plans always backfire. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is a surefire economic loser. So is putting government in charge of the economy, which is what Mr. Obama is proselytizing. …
Did someone say inexperience?
http://www.foxbusiness.com/article/rnc-blame-obama_569875_1.html
Political_mama
Posted April 20, 2008 at 3:54 pm | Permalink
Poor Max. He’s so in defense of this administration and this FANTASTIC way of life that he’s gotta try to bring up anything at all to make the opponent look bad. To bad he’s not American. Americans care for America.
————————————————-
Poor Mary, I see you found a way to pay the light bill. Just how is it those nasty Republicans raised your energy costs?
Did the Republicans stop the Democrats from drilling for more oil in Anwar and the continental shelf?
Did the Republicans raise your taxes? Cut your welfare?
Rage (in case you didn’t see my post on the Bush thread):
I didn’t, Mr.C, thanks for the info.
On such a wonderful day, all Max has to do is play with himself.
Go outside Max, enjoy this beautiful day!
Political Mama,
How is the quote false? It was a video taped interview.
I watched him say it.
Nathan you have a choice; Either believe what your eyes saw and your ears heard or believe what Pmom and her lib friends decided really happened. Your choice
Sigh. . . not false, just a false impression, like this was some idea that Dawkins (not “Hawkins”) advocated. I haven’t seen this stupid movie, but my understanding is that Dawkins was asked if there was any way possible that life on Earth could originate from some sort of “intelligent design.” Dawkins responded honestly, as I would have expected.
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/04/open-thread-419/#comment-334059
Incidently, no credible scientist–not even a resolute atheist like Dawkins–would claim that creation of life on this planet by some super-powerful, highly-advanced creature (God or whatever) was impossible . They simply argue that
(1) From an empirical, scientific perspective, the hard evidence isn’t there.
(2) the supernatural cannot be introduced into science, as it then makes it possible at any point to cite supernatural (i.e. the unseen and/or unexplainable) as an “explanation”–what the Greeks called Deux ex machina (literallly, “God out of a box”). One might as well simply stop asking questions, declare “God did it!” and go home!
(3) The motiviation of the ID people, clearly is to attack evolutionary theory, and not to propose any alternative explanation for the vast array of things that evolution explains. Taken as science, “Intelligent Design” is at best a weak hypothesis, and one which invariably relies on asserting on something unproven, and then shifting the burden to others to disprove it.
(4) The deeper motivation of the ID people is, clearly, to “defend” faith in God against a hallucinated, largely nonexistent attack from science. This is not to say that scientific findings don’t occasionally come in conflict with the most rigid aspects of church doctine. Invariably, thought, this happens when when the church insists on making specific, falsifiable claims about the natural world –which is, unavoidably, science’s domain–science doesn’t and shouldn’t interfere in the realm of faith!
Yet this idiotic crap continues.
P.S. It almost seems pointless to mention this, in addition, but the origin of life on this planet has nothing to do with evolution, except in the minds of creationists.
Rage,
And in my initial quote I used the word “possible.”
I didn’t attribute the belief to Dawkings.
Sorry, I have a hard time not typing that g in his name…
Dawkins.
The problem with science is that it can never really completely explain the absolute beginning of things.
Science is restricted by time, God isn’t.
Rage,
The movie didn’t attempt to say the orgin of life was part of Evolution either.
The point made by the movie was the level of absurd beliefs science has to offer for the first life form.
Also, it is rather absurd for someone to say “assume life” now Evolution.
That was the point being made. One you Evolution supporters purposefully avoid like the plague because you realise how much of a hard time you would have answering the question.
Rage,
Where do you get your proof for the motives of ID people?
THAT type of attack on those who support ID is exactly what the movie is about.
People like you engage in these types of false allegations on the motives of ID people instead of engaging them in discussion.
Rage,
Again, there are many people who favor looking at things from an ID persepctive who do not believe in God or are trying to defend faith.
Another point the movie was making.
Just another one of your false attacks on anyone who would dare support ID. Label them as only trying to defend their faith or insert God into the discussion.
Rage,
You are almost a walking and talking text book example of the distortion of the ID people that goes on.
The point made by the movie was the level of absurd beliefs science has to offer for the first life form.
Like what? As far I know, the current working models suggest that that first creatures were RNA-based.
Also, it is rather absurd for someone to say “assume life” now Evolution.
Why? We don’t have to “assume life” to begin with. There’s plenty of evidence of life over the past 3 billion or so years.
And, unlike creationists, scientists have no problems with those three little words: “I don’t know”!
Rage,
You do have to assume life for Evolution.
So… Where did Evolution start from then?
“And, unlike creationists, scientists have no problems with those three little words: “I don’t know”!”
But scientists do have a problem with chained theories when they all start out as:
“”IF XX then YY”
“Else” ZZ”"
“”IF ZZ then AA”
“Else” “BB”
After a few hundred of those, if any one part fails, the whole chain of theoretical consequence fails.
Then, the scientists can say, “We don’t know.”
In climate science, they put a coat and tie on it and call it “uncertainties.”
(chortles)
Rage,
Once again, you choose to attack “creationists.”
This discussion is about the movie Expelled, Evolution, and ID.
Where did creationists get into the discussion beyond your deflecting to them with insults?
ID is creationism lite, and obviously so, for reasons posted here ad nauseum , but whatever.
Another point the movie was making.
Yes, another lie. Like the lies that equate evolutinary with Nazi ideology (news travels fast).
Just another one of your false attacks on anyone who would dare support ID. Label them as only trying to defend their faith or insert God into the discussion.
One could point to the numerous documents and statements by ID’s proponents themselves that prove this, but, okay, Nathan. Find me a single atheist who supports ID.
Just one. We’ll go from there.
You, of course, can try to turn this around to the ridiculous argument that evolution is somehow an atheist ideology. But then that requires explaining the millions of religious people–and religious scientists who support it.
And the problem with God is that you are assuming an entity existing prior to the universe that had the power to create it; and your explanation is: “God just is.”
Well, so can the universe just “be.” However there is a way out for all. God and the universe are the same thing.
On such a beautiful day, “Max” is CLEARLY in need of a life.
And outlanders’ movie starring the voice of my kids’ favorite cartoons?
It’s getting the audience that wants to see it. And likely no more.
Here’s a review of the Stein film:
One of the sleaziest documentaries to arrive in a very long time, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” is a conspiracy-theory rant masquerading as investigative inquiry. …the film relies extensively on the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy — after this, therefore because of this…
Prominent evolutionary biologists, like the author and Oxford professor Richard Dawkins — accurately identified on screen as an “atheist” — are provided solely to construct, in cleverly edited slices, an inevitable connection between Darwinism and godlessness. Blithely ignoring the vital distinction between social and scientific Darwinism, the film links evolution theory to fascism (as well as abortion, euthanasia and eugenics), shamelessly invoking the Holocaust with black-and-white film of Nazi gas chambers and mass graves.
Every few minutes familiar — and ideologically unrelated — images interrupt the talking heads: … This is not argument, it’s circus, a distraction from the film’s contempt for precision and intellectual rigor. This goes further than a willful misunderstanding of the scientific method. …
Mixing physical apples and metaphysical oranges at every turn “Expelled” is an unprincipled propaganda piece that insults believers and nonbelievers alike. In its fudging, eliding and refusal to define terms, the movie proves that the only expulsion here is of reason itself.
Amazing Outlander… Darwin was a VERY religious person… a devout Christian of his time… How Darwin could be linked to Atheism is one of the spurilous claims of the anti Science mongrels… as always…
It takes somebody with a definite mental deficiency to turn away from scientific discovery in the face of so much scientific FACT today, compared to when Darwin lived!!
Every scientific argument that the Christian Church has historically attempted to RULE on has been proven totally wrong!!
Is the CHURCH wrong?? not at all!! Theology and Science may have some common ground… but basically, its apples and oranges…. Science deals in how’s and when’s and if’s… Theology deals in Faith, Love, and he WHY of life… Those things are not intended to be run through the spectrum that is Science…
I think Square Peg hit the nail on the head Friday >>>> LOL
===============================================
SquarePeg
Posted April 18, 2008 at 5:38 pm | Permalink
THEME SONG FOR MAX’S DAILY RANT
They’re Coming to Take Me Away
Napoleon the 14th
Remember when you ran away
And I got on my knees and begged you
Not to go because I’d go berserk?
WELL,
You left me anyhow and
Then the days got worse and worse
And now you see I’ve gone completely
out of my mind,
AND
[1st chorus]
They’re coming to take my guns,
Haha, then they’re coming to take me too,
Ho ho, hee hee, ha ha,
To the funny farm
Where Life is Beautiful all the time
And I’ll be happy to see
Those Nice Young Men
In their Clean White Coats
And they’re coming to take me AWAY,
HA HAAAAA
You thought it was a joke,
and so you LAUGHED, YOU LAUGHED
When I had said that losing my guns
Would make me flip my lid,
RIGHT?
You know you laughed.
I HEARD you laugh, you laughed
And laughed and laughed
And then you left,
And now you see I’m Utterly Mad
AND
[second chorus]
They’re coming to take my guns,
Haha, then they’re coming to take me too,
Ho ho, hee hee, ha ha,
To the Happy Home with Trees and Flowers
And Chirping Birds and basket weavers
Who sit and smile and
Twiddle their thumbs and toes
And they’re coming to Take me Away,
HAHAAAAAAAAA
I earned my food,
I built my house,
And this is how you pay me back
For all my unkind selfish capitalist deeds
RIGHT?
Well, you just wait,
They’ll get you yet,
And when they do, they’ll put you in
the ASPCA, you mangy MUTT,
AND
(chorus 1)
(chorus 2)
(chorus 1 trailing into mumbles in the distance)
That “song” sucked the first time Chas.
No need in repeating it.
I wasnt ere Fridday, Regular, but it does seem to fit the daily tirades… Sorry if you dont like it!!
Thanks for the review Monkeyhawk.
Sounds like Stein continues to find a role in cartoons.
He is also the voice of the evil (and not coincidentally very neo con portrayed) CEO of the pixies in the Nickelodeon cartoon “Fairly Oddparents”
He found fame portraying a particularly dull science teacher in the 90’s sitcom “The Wonder Years”
LOL — not to mention the droning character in Ferris Buhler — “Buhler… Buhler… Buhler”
To you Libs who don’t support the 2nd Amendment, then you should be happy with voting for either Clinton or Obama.
To you Libs who DO support the 2nd Amendment, then if you read just one article about Barack Obama, then this is the one article that you should read:
Barack Obama’s Slippery Oratory
by Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President
NRA Standing Guard - April 11, 2008
To understand Barack Obama on the Second Amendment, you have to know about the clash of character between the then-Chicago state senator and an ordinary citizen who exercised his right to armed self-defense in violation of a local gun ban.
That citizen was a 52-year-old resident of Wilmette, Illinois, who, on Dec. 28, 2003, woke to find that, during the night, his home had been invaded by a career criminal; a thief who stole household items, keys and the homeowner’s car.
The victim, Hale DeMar, described his fear in a letter to the Chicago Sun- Times: “For me, the seconds until I found my children still safely tucked in their beds were horrifying . . . The police were called and in routine fashion they came, took the report and with little concern left, promising to increase surveillance. Little comfort, since the invader now had keys to our home and our automobiles. The police informed me that this was not an uncommon event in east Wilmette and offered their condolences . . .” Not 24 hours after the first burglary, the thief returned. Using DeMar’s house keys, the man entered the home, this time setting off the alarm system, automatically notifying the security company. Given the previous night’s lackluster response by police, DeMar was prepared, armed with a handgun–legally purchased years before and kept in a safe. But under Wilmette’s gun ban, that firearm in the home was illegal.
DeMar confronted the criminal, and believing his children were in danger, shot the burglar, who then fled the home.
“Until you are shocked by a piercing alarm in the middle of the night and met in your kitchen by a masked invader as your children shudder in their beds, until you confront that very real nightmare, please don’t suggest that some village trustee knows better … “If my actions have spared only one family from the distress and trauma that this habitual criminal has caused hundreds of others, then I have served my civic duty and taken one evil creature off of our streets, something that our impotent criminal justice system had failed to do, despite some thirty odd arrests, plea bargains and suspended sentences.” The burglar, who was arrested after driving DeMar’s stolen SUV to a hospital, had an extensive criminal record.
Cook County prosecutors ultimately declared DeMar’s use of a firearm to be justified. But Wilmette village officials pressed nonetheless to prosecute him for illegal possession of his handgun–a charge punishable by a huge fine and jail time. A town official was quoted in Reason magazine saying, “We need to set the example that we’re trying to protect our citizens.” And he said, DeMar–by possessing a legally purchased handgun–”is endangering innocent civilians.” The outcry of the Illinois public was heard all the way to the state capitol.
As a result, the Illinois House and Senate passed legislation in May 2004 to protect citizens who use handguns in self-defense in their homes or businesses despite local handgun bans.
The House accepted the DeMar selfdefense bill by a vote of 86-25 and the Senate moved the legislation on a 38-20 vote.
And here lies the seminal moment for state Senator Barack Obama. When Obama turned thumbs down on the bill, he voted against the most basic element of the Second Amendment– the right of defense of self and family– the reason that millions of Americans own firearms.
When the governor vetoed the bill, Obama once again voted against a citizen’s right to self-defense.
Despite his vote, the veto override passed the Senate and the House by overwhelming majorities, thereby enacting this bill into law.
Now, fast forward to today’s slippery oratory of U.S. Sen. Barack Obama just three years from being an unknown state senator–now morphed by the media into a spellbinding u.s. senator seeking to be president of the United States.
Using words like “protecting sportsmen,” Obama is now saying that he believes in the Second Amendment … but with almost universal exceptions, all of which he lists under the heading of “common sense gun safety laws.” “Common sense gun safety” and the Second Amendment? Like endorsing the D.C. gun ban, which outlaws armed self-defense in the home–now being challenged before the u.s. Supreme Court. Obama, who as president would be in the position to nominate justices to that high court, has declared that the d.c. ban doesn’t violate the Second Amendment.
“Common sense gun safety” and the Second Amendment? In a “1998 National Political Awareness Test,” he pledged to support a “Ban [on] the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons”–meaning most handguns and many rifles and shotguns that you and I own.
“Common sense gun safety” and the Second Amendment? Like demanding that the federal government preempt the 40 hard-won state laws creating Right-to-Carry.
Here’s how the Chicago Tribune put it: “Obama said he opposed allowing ordinary citizens to carry concealed weapons and that a federal law banning concealed carried weapons except for law enforcement is needed.” “Common sense gun safety” and the Second Amendment? Like the draconian proposals funded to the tune of $18,000,000 by the rabidly anti-gun Joyce Foundation while Obama was an activist member of its board of directors.
Obama’s alleged support of the Second Amendment is utterly cynical and false. Barack Obama is not for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms; he`s out to destroy it.
http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=418899
Maybe the 2nd Amendment is important to you, but you don’t see it as being more important then the Social Welfare programs you hope the Liberal Democrats Clinton and Obama will bring to you.
If there is any ONE part of the US Constitution you should NOT sacrifice for some perceived promises of social comforts, the 2nd Amendment is the most important one to protect.
If your candidate does not believe you have the right to protect your own life, then what rights will your candidate save for you?
If my choice was to vote for a solid pro-2nd Amendment Liberal Democrat vs a Republican (RHINO) candidate who was agaisnt the 2nd Amendment, I would vote Democrat every time.
Will you Libs who support the 2nd Amendment actually vote for Clinton or Obama?
Scary.
Senator Webb (D, Virginia, packs heat.
It took a lot of work, but Max has reached Parkay status - strictly scroll over nonsense - one of the few that has absolutely nothing to add to the discussion.
As for ID - Creationism - Evolution?
If you won’t teach your religion in my science class, I won’t teach science in your church.
Fair enough?
If not, please provide the SCIENTIFIC evidence to support your theory - not the Bible - but scientific evidence.
By the way, a lack of complete evolutionary evidence does NOT PROVE ID.
Sorry Max, but to me you are just going on blah blah blah buh blah.
You are certainly passionate about your beliefs and I hope you volunteer locally to pursue/implement your beliefs.
Hogging the blog with long rants/pastes is ok but I might suggest action in the real world would further your interests much more.
Good luck and good day!
Social welfare programs address crime and violence at their root.
They mitigate economic and social injustice.
Guns can only protect one from the results of economic and social injustice.
Actually Chas I think you will find that by his own definition Darwin was an agnostic. He wavered back and forth but at the age of 70 described himself thus.
Granny, I think you should re-check your history… LOL
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/04/18/cneuro118.xml
Europe is ready to take matters into their own hands about our CRASHING ECONOMY.
Yes, folks, that is how bad it is here.
“Did Darwin destroy Christianity? Darwin said no. In 1879 atheist John Fordyce wrote Darwin asking whether evolution and God were compatible. Darwin replied that it was absurd to doubt whether anyone could ardently believe in God and be an evolutionist, and gave the examples of his friends, Asa Gray and Charles Kingsley. He then stressed he had never been an atheist and was best considered an agnostic. With that view of Darwin at 70, we can leave the question.”
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2000/PSCF6-00Roberts.html
Well Chas I have showed you my evidence. What do you base your claim of inaccuracy on?
FOR ALL INTERESTED >>>>
Dear Members and Friends of The Clergy Letter Project,
As many of you know, Ben Stein’s anti-evolution and anti-intellectual movie, Expelled, was released yesterday. One of the main points the movie makes is that accepting evolution leads directly to atheism. This ridiculous claim is one of many that numerous reviews have attempted to dismiss. More often than not, I’m delighted to say, the evidence used is the existence of The Clergy Letter. The fact that more than 11,100 clergy members from across the United States have signed a statement in support of evolution is making a big difference in countering this claim.
Indeed, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the nation’s largest scientific organization released a statement condemning the film yesterday (http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2008/media/0418aaas_statement.pdf).
The statement begins by saying, “For more than a decade, the nonprofit American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) has been working to build a constructive bridge between scientific and religious communities through its Dialogue on Science, Ethics and Religion and other programs. There also have been many efforts by religious leaders to accomplish the same goal. For example, more than 11,000 clergy have signed an open letter supporting the view that faith and science should be seen as complementary, not competing.” The statement goes on to say that, “We were therefore especially disappointed to learn that the producers of an intelligent design propaganda movie called ‘Expelled’ are inappropriately pitting science against religion.”
mz@butler.edu
From your own quote, Grm >>>>
“He then stressed he had never been an atheist and was best considered an agnostic.”
CONCLUSION OF ABOVE >>>>
Obviously our efforts are being noticed and are making a difference.
I urge you to read the full AAAS statement (at the link above) and to explore a web site set up by the National Center for Science Education entitled Expelled Exposed http://www.expelledexposed.com) if you want to learn more about this movie.
Because of the increased attention The Clergy Letter Project is receiving, this would be a great time to increase the number of clergy who have signed The Clergy Letter, to increase the number of scientists willing to serve as consultants to The Clergy Letter Project and to increase the number of participants in Evolution Weekend 2009 (13-15 February 2009). Please help!!
If your congregation is willing to participate in Evolution Weekend 2009, please let me know. Although it is about 10 months before the event, we already have more than 70 congregations representing 36 states and four countries on board. I’ll post the full list of participants soon, but I’d like for all states to represented when I do that. So please sign up now. And please think about circulating the flyer I’ve created for the event (http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/pdf/evolution%20weekend%202009.doc) to friends and colleagues and on any listserve to which you might subscribe.
Please help spread the word to clergy and scientists and encourage the former to sign The Letter and the letter to enroll as consultants. As you do so, watch our numbers swell and watch our message that religion and science need not be at war take root around the globe.
Because of your efforts to date, we have much to be proud of. Thank you! Unfortunately, there is still a very real need for our message to be heard.
Michael Zimmerman
Office of the Dean
College of Liberal Arts and Sciences
Butler University
Indianapolis, IN 46208
Tel: 317.940.9224
Fax: 317.940.8815
Senator Webb (D, Virginia, packs heat.
So does CapnAmerica.
ksgrm
Posted April 20, 2008 at 7:18 pm | Permalink
Actually Chas I think you will find that by his own definition Darwin was an agnostic. He wavered back and forth but at the age of 70 described himself thus.
Chas
Posted April 20, 2008 at 7:20 pm |
Permalink
Granny, I think you should re-check your history… LOL
Chas
Posted April 20, 2008 at 7:32 pm | Permalink
From your own quote, Grm >>>>
“He then stressed he had never been an atheist and was best considered an agnostic.”
Well Chas I rechecked the post and my original statement that he was agnostic and not Christian stands the same. Where is the inaccuracy? Do you argue with yourself much?
KSGrm More from your cited article >>>>
“Yet for forty years in Downe, Kent, Darwin was a pillar of the church–of the flying-buttress type– supporting it by good works and generosity from the outside! All his life he supported the evangelical South American Missionary Society, and even Bishop Samuel Wilberforce, his strongest opponent, thought him a capital fellow. And so do I!
It is often claimed that Darwin destroyed belief in a six-day creation. After twenty-five years of research, I have not found one Anglican clergyman who held to a six-day creation in 1860, so how could Darwin destroy that belief? (If you ever read that Darwin destroyed belief in a six-day creation, then consider the writer a monkey rather than descended from apes!)”
Chas which part of ‘I am an agnostic’ did you miss?
KsGrm — your attitude toward Darwin, as well as others here, is that Darwinism is equal to atheism… Which is obviously NOT true. So, you might remember that when you make the assertions that Evolution is “atheistic”
Chas are you delusional? Where have I ever said evolution was atheistic. You know you really don’t need anyone else on the blog. You can present all sides of every argument and then agree or disagree with yourself. This is a waste of my time.
Germ, a person can be agnostic and still be a Christian.
Agnosticism (Greek: ?- a-, without + ?????? gn?sis, knowledge; after Gnosticism) is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of God, gods, deities, or even ultimate reality — is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently unknowable due to the nature of subjective experience perceived by that individual.
Demographic research services normally list agnostics in the same category as atheists and non-religious people[1], using ‘agnostic’ in the newer sense of ‘noncommittal’[2]. However, this can be misleading given the existence of agnostic theists, who identify themselves as both agnostics in the original sense and followers of a particular religion.
Rage
Posted April 20, 2008 at 7:37 pm | Permalink
Senator Webb (D, Virginia, packs heat.
So does CapnAmerica
———————-
With his attitude, I can understand why.
“From the posts here I guess no one was surprised when the ‘victim’ call was found to be from a 40 old woman who is an Obama delegate. It does seem to be a dem/lib position that gross atrocities were taking place but so far this hasn’t been proved.”
[KsGrm]
============================
Grm, You REALLY need some kind of a valid link to that line of Hooey!! Last newsd I heard is that the woman has been found to have made false alarm claims in the past… But an Obama delegate??? GET REAL!
I do believe your religious faith discourages lying, and bearing false witness!!
Germ, a person can be agnostic and still be a Christian.
Not wanting to jump into Ksgrm/Chas’s argument, but Ksagnostic is a member of UCC.
Good grief, folks, the Judge in TX has ordered DNA testing!! They arent even SURE who SOME of the childen have for parents!!
WHY are some of you defending this crazed cult??
Agnostic is another word for “fence walker.”
They have the convenience of changing like a chameleon depending on what crowd they are hanging with.
An agnostic is an Atheistic apologist.
A person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic
Tell me where the definition of agnostic says anything about being a Christian.
Ksagnostic can call himself anything he wants but he can’t change the definition of agnostic.
Reg an agnostic is someone who won’t make a declaration either for or against a diety. Therefore to say Darwin was a strong Christian as Chas tried to do is simply false.
Gee is Ksagnostic here today?? LOL
An agnostic is an Atheistic apologist.
Not really: logically, it’s a declaration of uncertainty. An honest position in its own right. One can still believe, and doubt.
Heh, as for myself, I wonder how many people will even understand this statement:
I am, in terms of scientific evidence, an atheist. But, in terms of mathematical proof, I remain an agnostic.
So, in a sense, I am both an atheist and an agnostic.
You figure it out.
P.S. Don’t worry, Reg, the Capn won’t show at Watermark and shoot you!
I promise!
I didnt say it granny — that came direct from YOUR article!!
Also, any educated clergyman KNOWS that Darwin studied for the ordained ministry!! At age SEVENTY he determined he was an agnostic (Never doubted the existence of Deity) jost wasnt an orthodox christian!!
All of which has NOTHING to with The Origin of Species!!!
Rage
Posted April 20, 2008 at 8:11 pm | Permalink
An agnostic is an Atheistic apologist.
Not really: logically, it’s a declaration of uncertainty. An honest position in its own right. One can still believe, and doubt.
—————————————-
There goes that word again, “uncertainty.”
It’s what scientists use when they don’t know what they are talking about.
—————————————
I don’t care if CapnAmerica shows up. He can’t brandish a fire arm in a public place anyway, even if kidding - it’s illegal. He should know that “if” he has CC license.
Interesting Chas. The guy writing your copy and paste is Michael Zimmerman. This guy is a college professor who is organizing liberal churches. He is peddling “Evolution Weekend 2008″. What will the participating churches worship that weekend?
I wonder when “Theory of Relativity Weekend” is?
I thought that science wasn’t political.
I thought that science wasn’t political
It wasn’t until duh Libs got a hold of it.
“In an odd coincidence, a person named Rozita E. Swinton of Colorado Springs is listed on the El Paso County Democratic Party website as an Obama delegate.”
Chas ck this out. I just think it is funny that a dem activist is probably the one who started the entire thing.
It’s entirely possible that there are several Rozita E Swintons in Colorado Springs. It is such a common name kinda like Jim Jones.
Regular
Posted April 20, 2008 at 8:01 pm | Permalink
Rage
Posted April 20, 2008 at 7:37 pm | Permalink
Senator Webb (D, Virginia, packs heat.
So does CapnAmerica
———————-
With his attitude, I can understand why.
————————————————-
I see nothin wrong with Capn ‘packinig’. Disagree with his views yes, but as long as he is legaly carrying, that’s his right.
As for Webb, great. Support for the 2nd Amendment should not be a partisan issue, though there are many Democrats who do not support the 2nd Amendment.
Well, then, if you want to continue to make your stupid claim, then I suggest you post a LINK to back it up…
don’t care if CapnAmerica shows up. He can’t brandish a fire arm in a public place anyway, even if kidding - it’s illegal.
I don’t know (or care) if he has a CC permit.
I was making a joke. Perhaps at your expense, but a joke nonetheless.
Outlander — instead of attac king me… why dont you actually READ the links Dr. Zimmerman provides in his materials… They are all FREE items…
Max, never said there was anything wrong with it.
I was implying that you can’t use a CC license to hold dominance over a casual encounter if there isn’t a threat. That is illegal.
Rage,
Too assert that all ID proponents are creationist is just as much a false claim as if I were to say all Evolutionists were athiests.
Athiesm and Creationism are wrold views. Of course I would be hard pressed to show you that an Athiest is a believer in ID. Why on Earth would an Atheist lean toward a belief which is practically incompatable with their underlying world view?
So to say I must show you an Athiest who believes in ID is a Red Herring.
For the same reason that Atheists are drawn to accept the belief in Evolution is indeed the same reason Creationists would be drawn to accept ID.
For either of us to assert that then both Evolution and ID MUST be comprised of either creationists and atheists respectivly is false.
Yet that is exactly what people like you do.
I don’t “pack heat,” folks.
I have several long guns, but no handguns that I carry around.
Chas I have given you every clue you need to find what I did. As I have said before ‘If you need a secretary, hire one.’
From the looks of things, everybody should go buy a piece, to protect themselves from the over zealous gun nut fringe on the WE Blog!!
You never can tell when they might determine YOU to be their enemy, or threat!! LOL
Chas,
And what about the bayonet nut fringe like you?
Used to be a sign on a bar in Texas.
“If you are carrying a firearm, keep it holstered. If you don’t have a firearm, check in at the bar and one will be issued to you.”